Posted on 02/26/2018 9:43:48 AM PST by fruser1
Why, after all this time, has no one gone up to the FISA judge (or judges) and asked how much of a contribution was the "dossier" towards the decision to approve the warrant application?
This was one of the first questions I had about this. When Trump first tweeted that the O admin had wiretapped him, it would've been a very simple matter for him to walk on over and look at the warrant application.
Yet this was not done. My opinion at the time was that Trump didn't realize how big of a bomb he lit off. I.e., I think he was doing it only to counter news stories against him, not that, if true, it would be a bigger issue than Watergate.
I think the press won't pursue this simple question because it would, too quickly, end a big story. They would prefer to stretch out a story as long as possible as long as it gets good ratings.
Unfortunately, even Fox is guilty of this, though I think they are much better than other media outlets.
Nevertheless, I can't help but keep in mind that whenever I'm watching the "news", I'm actually just watching a really long commercial.
Also, shouldn’t the FISA judge be imposing sanctions for contempt of court on the DOJ officials who knowingly submitted falsified documents? Why hasn’t this happened??
A better question to ask is, why was he recused?
Trust me, if you could get to judge Contreras to ask these questions, he would refuse to answer.
Everyone is complicit in the crimes of the Kenyanesian Usurpation and fear any thread pulled could expose their own culpability.
Trump is about the only one in DC who did not collude to violate the Constitution.
“who approved the warrant “
No, I’d just want to know how much the dossier itself contributed to the decision. No justification required. They supposedly answered this question in the committee hearing, but since the hearing was classified, transcripts cannot be released.
Incidentally, keeping it to that one question won’t required a classified answer, as it is already known the dossier was part of the application.
The Republicans have now released the memo containing their version of what is in the controversial FSIA application. Not surprisingly, the Democrats have a different version. It should be easy to decide whose “truth” is more credible: Let the American public see the application itself — instead of second-hand, partisan accounts — and let us decide for ourselves.ML/NJThe problem with that obvious solution is that the application is currently classified. But classification should never be used – as it often is – for political benefit or to protect agencies or individuals from just criticism. Let a nonpartisan expert decide what must be redacted for genuine security concerns, and let the remainder of the application be released.
We, the American people, have the right to know whether the application deliberately failed to disclose to the FISA court that the so-called “Steele dossier” was commissioned by political operatives seeking dirt on a political opponent. We are entitled to know how much weight, if any, was given to the dossier in the application.
Because McCabe testified before congress that the warrant could not have happened without the dossier
“how much weight, if any, was given to the dossier “
Yes, that’s my question.
However, it has yet to be asked to the judge(s) who ruled on the case in a public fashion - i.e., reporter finds them, asks...
We already have publicized info through intermediaries. Answering the question in another classified meeting, or the review of a classified doc, would still require an intermediary.
And even if the intermediary were truly neutral, since we’d get the info second-hand, the intermediary would simply be accused of being biased by the “losing” side.
“Because McCabe”
That’s what Nunes said. Dems say otherwise.
Without the source, it’s your own belief that decides the true answer, not the facts, which are actually unknown.
We can also view that judgment as being in the hands of the applicant in the first place, not the judge. If we take McCabe's account as correct, the application would not have even been filed without some evidence contained only in the dossier.
A judge would almost certainly answer that the decision was made based on the totality of the application, not a part of it. That would lead to media claiming the dossier didn’t matter.
A way to shed light on the issue might be to review the application that was turned down in mid-Summer 2016. Based on timing, it likely did not contain the dossier itself. Compare that failed submittal with the one subsequently approved. Since the second try was approved, any difference (for instance adding the dossier and Isakoff article based on the dossier) would be a strong argument that the new material made the critical difference.
“Compare that failed submittal”
Excellent idea!
That testimony was released I believe
There’s a lot going on behind the scenes and the people that matter... Goodlatte and Nunes have been asking the right questions... checkout the Treehouse and see for yourself
I believe it will happen, after seperation of powers issues get resolved. Their ID is suposed to be secret (hah), and who has jurisdiction? etc. It’s in the works.
Next biggie, on this front, is...did the DOJ falsify the warrent package they showed Congress? Grassley is pushing the FISC to give him a copy of theirs. If they are different, geeze...
Until then, there will be bigger shoes dropping...IG report due in 2 weeks, I believe.
Cause maybe, just maybe the judge was in on the scam...
Hell, every one else involved was and is a dirt bag so why not the judge too.
I mean just look at how the pathetic supremes act.
It’s up to the court itself or to Roberts since he’s in charge of the FISA court, but they got the goods on him, so he ain’t sayin’ shiite.
1. The fact it was introduced into the courts speaks volumes of the corruption.
2. Obviously it was necessary for the warrent, why else would it have been introduced.
I may be slow, but to my simple mind, seems pretty obvious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.